From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Porwich

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 22, 2011
205 N.J. 230 (N.J. 2011)

Opinion

March 22, 2011.


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 10-279, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule 1:20-4(f) (default by respondent), that ALAN S. PORWICH of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1979, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client), RPC 1.16(d) (failure to protect a client's interests on termination of the representation), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);

And the Court having determined from its review of the matter that a censure is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent's unethical conduct;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ALAN S. PORWICH is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent's file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.


Summaries of

In re Porwich

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 22, 2011
205 N.J. 230 (N.J. 2011)
Case details for

In re Porwich

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ALAN S. PORWICH, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Mar 22, 2011

Citations

205 N.J. 230 (N.J. 2011)
14 A.3d 747

Citing Cases

In re Larkins

McCarthy, however, had no prior discipline. In another default case, In re Porwich, 205 N.J. 230 (2011), the…

In re Savage

The discipline in default matters with similar ethics violations varies greatly, depending on the number of…